Centerfield

I thought centrists believed in compromise. If you read the entire article, you see that the leadership tried to push an untenable reform package down the throats of rank-and-file members, leaving them in a damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't position. So everybody is going back to the drawing board to work together to come up with a workable package. Isn't that just compromise and the political process at work?

Posted by: PatHMV at February 4, 2006 11:23 AM

Compromise is good, but so is reform that constitutes more than just eye wash. Congress didn't have any problem passing restrictions on the activities of federal employees (and rightly so!). What's the problem with making congressmen live up to the same standard?

I would never consider accepting skybox tickets or a free $100 lunch from a federal contractor.

Posted by: Bob J Young at February 4, 2006 12:03 PM

I believe that the long term answer to reducing lobbying for selfish interests is to limit earmarks and establish a Flat Tax.

Meanwhile It is probably impossible to stop influence. The best we can do is make it transparent. I like the proposal to require both the donor and recipient to report the flow of valuables.
But as the aphorism says "Money is like water - it finds and flows through every crevice."
Might we anticipate more special interests giving money to recipients designated by the politicians?

Posted by: Paul at February 4, 2006 12:47 PM

'Tis better to deliberate at leisure than err in haste.

Posted by: Tully at February 4, 2006 01:58 PM

1) Will tackle what many Republicans see as the root of the lobbying problem -- the ease with which lawmakers can dole out millions of dollars in favors through pet provisions in spending bills.

2) Disclosure of any meal or gift from a lobbyist within 24 hours, both by the lawmaker and the lobbyist. "If you can't go out and justify a $60 meal and see it in the press, then maybe you shouldn't go," he said. "But if you can, go ahead and do it, and let the world see what that relationship was."

3) Congressional members required to seek preapproval from the House ethics committee for any paid trip.

The first item could be a potentially huge development, we'll see what they come up with. It could make the new bill much more effective than the previous in addressing corruption.

The second bit on mandatory disclosure of even small gifts is fantastic and badly needed.

I can see people joking about the last, saying it is the wolves guarding the hen house. Still I think it is a very positive development that could change the attitude on grandiose paid trips.

Posted by: Susan at February 4, 2006 02:46 PM

I think perhaps the key is in something you wrote, Bob: "a politician voting to give up a free lunch...in the real world it just doesn't happen." Well, if one accepts that premise, which is better: an outright ban, which will simply drive the entire enterprise of lobbying underground, or a regulatory framework which makes it harder to hide stuff, at the cost of permitting some lobbying to continue?

Posted by: Simon at February 4, 2006 03:00 PM

I can't help but notice how this whole lobbying debate highlights the double standard between the voter and the insiders/lobbyist.

Would my congressman or senator accept and invitation from an ordinary constituent for drinks and dinner? Heck I can't even get them to answer my email.

If I go to a convention it's paid for by the DOD because I can justify being there. If travel funds are exhausted you don't go. No free plane tickets or free lunch from a contractor. I'm not complaining, I agree with the system, but the contrast is just so striking.

Posted by: Bob J Young at February 4, 2006 04:12 PM

Actually a legislator might accept an invitation for a meal from a constituent if they saw that constituent on a regular basis and the constituent was reasonable, articulate, personable, & civil.
Lobbyists in principle provide a valuable service by helping to educate a legislator.

We do need guidelines to minimize abuse, but
we all want to be able to tell our representative that there is something in particular they should know in order to make a better decision.

Posted by: Paul at February 4, 2006 06:47 PM

Whew! I'm glad you said shifting. For a second there I thoght Boehner was shafting his party. Well he's shafting the corporatist wing of the GOP and that's fine by me.
They never took America's overall interests to heart.

Posted by: Marcus at February 6, 2006 01:44 AM

Actually a legislator might accept an invitation for a meal from a constituent if . . . the constituent was reasonable, articulate, personable, & civil.

Those three attributes, and also, if the conversation was going to be productive in some ways, rather than feeding some narcissistic desire on the part of the constituent to feel self-important. Those four requirements in sum is probably why Bush doesn't particularly want to have another tete-a-tete with Cindy Sheehan. Posted by: Simon at February 6, 2006 09:06 AM

I would never consider accepting skybox tickets or a free $100 lunch from a federal contractor.

Me neither Bob. But it sure would be nice to be asked! :-)

Posted by: bk at February 6, 2006 01:47 PM